9-28-2020; Has the IL Supreme Court Ended Accident Defenses in IL WC?; Kevin Boyle on Important New Indiana IWCB Rule and more

Synopsis: Has the IL Supreme Court Ended Accident Defenses in Illinois? Are We Now a “Positional Risk” State?

Editor’s comment: Please note Illinois is a one-party State. Republicans don’t have a seat at our State’s table (and may not ever be back). Like Chicago, the only election of note is the Democratic primary. In my view, decisions like this are felt to be “liberal” or pro-labor. I don’t agree with that view. I consider this an “anti-lawyer” ruling, as it is going to render claims that were previously defensible to now be compensable—please trust me, Illinois business/TPA’s and insurance carriers are certain to drop relevant accident disputes, accept claims and pay benefits quickly. When this happens, Claimants aren’t going to need or go to Petitioners’ attorneys and TPA’s/Insurance carriers won’t need defense attorneys. Only time will tell.

In McAllister v. The Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, after six years of litigation involving an simple operated knee, our highest Court changed the test used to determine whether injuries caused by common bodily movements and everyday activities at work, such as bending, twisting, reaching, or standing from a kneeling position, are compensable under the IL Workers’ Compensation Act. From my position, this is intended to overrule earlier rulings from the Supreme Court that placed a small additional burden of proof on claimants. If you have such claims pending in your active IL WC claims, send a reply if you want my view on whether you might continue to dispute/defend them. Please assume if you don’t review and reconsider handling, you are sure to get petitions for penalties and attorney’s fees so loved by the Claimant bar in this State.

I have taught several hundred law students who are now WC lawyers on both sides. In teaching them to evaluate challenging accident claims, we reviewed the 1969 ruling by the IL Supreme Court in The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois ruling where someone injured themselves putting their coat on at work. That claim was denied as a risk common to the public. In 1991, the decision in Hansel & Gretel Day Care, claimant injured herself standing up from a stool in a preschool. Again, the act of simply standing was not found to be compensable.

In this ruling, Claimant McAllister injured his right knee working as a sous-chef and filed a claim under the IL WC Act. McAllister testified at arbitration his job duties included arranging food in the restaurant’s walk-in cooler. On the day in question, suffered pain in his knee while moving from a kneeling to a standing position while searching the cooler for a misplaced item. He admitted under oath he didn’t slip, trip, slide or suffer any trauma. There was no asserted safety failure by Respondent, his employer. Basically, he simply stood up and felt pain. That description of an event hasn’t been an “accident” in this State since the inception of workers’ comp as a system of benefits in 1909.

Please also note the IL WC system hasn’t ever used the “positional risk” theory that other states have—in a positional risk state, if the worker is “positioned” at work when they suffer pain, it may be compensable because they are at work, regardless of cause. I believe IL WC is moving or has moved to that situation. In my view, our IL Supreme Court has judicially changed the common reading/meaning of our IL WC Act which requires both “arising out of” and “in the course of” employment—they are now only going to require “in the course of” for a physical problem to be work-related. Trust me, that is a giant expansion of IL WC claims, coverage and costs. It is also going to require fewer and fewer lawyers on both sides, as TPA’s/Insurance carriers simply drop disputes and pay, pay, pay.

In McAllister, the Arbitrator found in Claimant McAllister’s favor. The IL WC Commission panel followed traditional law and reversed that decision and found the injury did not arise out of the claimant’s employment. The Circuit and Appellate Courts affirmed. However, the Appellate Court was divided regarding the extent to which injuries caused by everyday activities were compensable under the IL WC Act. The majority favored the analysis contained in Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 129 Ill. 2d 52 (1989). This was an injury when Claimant stepped of a street curb going to his car.

Two concurring Appellate Court justices, however, preferred the analysis contained in Adcock v. Illinois Workers’ Compensation Comm’n, in which Claimant asserted he was injured simply pivoting in a swivel chair. In Adcock, the Court ruled Claimant had to establish his or her job duties required the claimant to engage in the everyday activity that caused the injury to a greater degree than the general public, even in situations where the activity was directly related to the claimant’s job duties.

The IL Supreme Court went a different direction. They agreed with the Appellate Court majority and held Caterpillar Tractor “prescribes the proper test for analyzing whether an injury ‘arises out of’ a claimant’s employment, when a claimant is injured performing job duties involving common bodily movements or routine everyday activities.” What is odd about the Court’s recognition of Caterpillar Tractor is WC benefits were denied in that claim! I am mildly baffled to see the ruling used to support a claim for benefits. With deepest respect to our reviewing courts, in my view, rulings like this are almost impossible to make sense of. The act of “stepping off a curb” is something that happens literally millions of times every day across the globe—if you are a klutz and injure yourself stepping off a typical street curb, you shouldn’t be able to complain to your employer and get substantial benefits. Please also note lots of WC fraud may follow when Claimants find out how easy it is to “fake” such occurrences that I don’t consider “accidents.” Welcome to Illinois.

The Supreme Court explained, consistent with Caterpillar Tractor, common bodily movements and everyday activities at or near work are compensable and employment-related if the activity that caused the injury “had its origin in some risks connected with, or incidental to, employment so as to create a causal connection between the employment and the accidental injury.” The Court then overruled Adcock and its progeny to the extent that they require a claimant to additionally prove he or she was exposed to a risk of injury to a greater extent than the general public. The Court further found McAllister’s injury was the result of a risk that was distinctly associated with his employment and, as such, was compensable, and held the Commission’s finding claimant was injured by a neutral risk that was not related to his employment was against the manifest weight of the evidence.

I appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

Synopsis: A New IN Work Comp Board Rule for More Specificity in Applications and COVID claims update. Article and analysis by our IN WC Defense Team Leader, Kevin Boyle, J.D

Editor’s comment: Maybe you haven’t heard about this new rule change yet, but the Indiana Worker’s Compensation Board recently posted an important notice to help eliminate vague Applications for Adjustment of Claim. It’s been pretty common over the past decades for savvy Plaintiffs’ attorneys to file very bland Applications for Adjustment of Claim with only minimal language to describe the injuries. You’ve probably seen this kind of injury description: “injured on the job,” or “injured in the course and scope of employment” with no real description of what happened or what body part was injured. Plaintiffs’ attorneys would generalize for a variety of reasons including the ability to add additional injuries that may arise later since they did not specify a body part or type of incident.

That practice is not allowed any more. If you receive an unspecific Application, contact me and we’ll take appropriate action to get it fixed. Plaintiffs’ attorneys will have to amend with better descriptions now. Their new amended Application will be deemed to have been filed on the date of the original Application. But still, don’t let them get away with it. Make them specify at the outset of their claim.

I hope everybody is healthy and making it through the COVID-19 changes to just about every aspect of our lives in some form or other. In Indiana, we still have not had a published judge ruling in Indiana workers compensation cases on the virus since I updated you in April 2020. Our Legislature has not been in session for months, so legislation hasn’t been enacted except at the State and local level regarding masking and crowd sizes.

Indiana has not taken or followed the aggressive leads of surrounding states like Illinois, Michigan and Kentucky. So, still treat your claims as an occupational disease. Also, the IWCB’s notice issued in April that I previously covered in our newsletter is still helpful and remains good guidance regarding first responders, health care providers and others who may contract the disease in their work. If you need that information again, let me know.

We appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog. You can reach Kevin Boyle at kboyle@keefe-law.com for any concern related to Indiana or Illinois workers’ compensation, general liability or employment law.

Synopsis: Annual IL State Chamber WC Conference Goes Virtual—Shawn Biery & John Campbell to present.

Editor’s comment: The 14th Annual Workers' Compensation & Safety Conference set for November 4th is being held virtual this year. The 8:30 am to noon program features John Ruser, President & CEO of the Workers' Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) and Michael Brennan, Chairman of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission.

The program also will include the following breakout sessions:

• Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome - Presented by Dr. Andrew Zelby and Dave Rusch, Vice President of Business Service Development, Ovation Hand Institute;

• Medical Marijuana in the Workplace - Presented by AJ Sheehan, MVP Law

• The Covid-19 Rebuttable Presumption - What is it and What Does it Mean for You? - Presented by Peter Stavropoulos, Brady Connolly and Masuda

• 2020 Workers Compensation Case Law Update - Presented by Shawn Biery and John Campbell, Keefe Campbell Biery & Associates

• Snakes, Leaches, and Tobacco Enemas - The Case for Evidence-Based Medical Treatment Guidelines - Presented by Patrick Robinson, Vice President, Government Affairs, ODG, an MCG Health Company

• OSHA Updates for 2020 and Beyond - Presented by Matthew Horn, SmithAmundsen LLC

For more information and to register:

https://ilchamber.org/workerscompconference/

9-24-2020; Illinois has Another Awful Anti-Business Law and It Can't Be Blocked by the IL WC Act; Feds Propose New Rule to Allow Determination of "Independent Contractor" Status Easier and more

Eugene Keefe <EKeefe@keefe-law.com>

9:00 AM (2 hours ago)

to

Synopsis: Illinois Has Another Awful Anti-Business Law and This Law Can’t Be Blocked by the IL WC Act.

Editor’s comment: In McDonald v. Symphony Bronzeville Park LLC, 2020 IL App (1st) 192398 (issued September 18, 2020), the Appellate Court ruled the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Act do not bar a claim for statutory, liquidated damages, where such damages arise under Illinois’ Biometric Information Privacy Act where an employer is alleged to have violated an employee's statutory privacy rights under the Biometric Information Privacy Act. The court ruled a claim under the Privacy Act is not the type of “injury” that fits within the purview of the IL Workers' Compensation Act. In short, the Illinois Appellate Court ruled IL employers can’t use Section 5 of the Illinois’ Workers’ Compensation Act to escape a rapidly growing number of class actions under IL new biometrics privacy law. The unanimous Court’s ruling is because the lawsuits brought under the biometrics law accuse the employers of violating the workers’ rights, but not actually harming them in any real way.

On Sept. 18, 2020, a three-justice panel of the Illinois First District Appellate Court in Chicago ruled the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act does not bar class action lawsuits brought under the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act. Quoting the ruling, “… We conclude that the exclusivity provisions of the (Workers’) Compensation Act do not bar a claim for statutory, liquidated damages, where an employer is alleged to have violated an employee’s statutory privacy rights under the (Biometric Information) Privacy Act [or BIPA], as such a claim is simply not compensable under the Compensation Act,” the justices wrote.

The ruling arose out of an appeal on a question of law from a class action lawsuit pending in Cook County Circuit Court since 2017. In that case, attorneys with a Chicago-based class action law firm filed suit against the corporate entity that operates the Symphony Bronzeville nursing home in Chicago. The lawsuit, which could represent virtually all of the workers at the nursing home in recent years, was filed on behalf of a named plaintiff.

The lawsuit accused the nursing home operators of violating the Illinois BIPA law by requiring its workers to verify their identity by scanning their fingerprints when punching in and out of work shifts, without first securing authorization from the workers to conduct the scans and without first notifying the workers about how their scanned prints would be collected, stored, used, shared and ultimately, destroyed, as allegedly required by the BIPA law.

In response to the lawsuit, attorneys representing Symphony argued the BIPA case should be dismissed, because the claims were preempted by the Illinois Workers’ Compensation Act. Symphony centered its arguments on a key provision in the workers’ comp law, which declares the workers’ comp law “preempts any ‘statutory right to recover damages from the employer … for injuries incurred in the course of … employment.”

The argument advanced by Symphony in this claim, and by other employers targeted in other similar BIPA class actions, had not secured any victories, either in state or federal court. As veteran defense observers, we greatly dislike the BIPA law but we don’t feel this attack on the legislation makes sense other than as a delaying tactic to block enforcement of the law. All state and federal judges sided against the employers on the workers’ comp law question.

Across this State, hundreds of employers face similar class actions in reliance on this punitive and anti-business law, with more being added, almost daily, in Cook County Circuit Court and other venues. The lawsuits place IL employers at a business-busting financial risk. Under the BIPA law, employers could face potential liability of $1,000-$5,000 for every single violation of the BIPA law. Please understand this is wildly punitive and doesn’t in any way match the conduct it is designed to stop. In these kinds of class actions, the law has been laughingly interpreted to define a “violation” as each time any worker punched the clock every day by scanning a fingerprint. This could place even moderately sized employers at risk of losing millions of dollars in damages and certain bankruptcy. Again, this law highlights to me how awful our IL legislature is to vital businesses.

We appreciate your thoughts and comments. If you need help defending your company in the biometric sphere, please send a reply.

Synopsis: New Proposed Rule from the Feds on “Independent Contractor” Versus “FLSA Employee.”

Editor’s comment: The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a proposed rule Sept. 22 to clarify when a worker is an “employee” covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) versus an independent contractor. Independent contractors, including what are called “gig-economy workers,” are not eligible for minimum wage, overtime and other benefits/protections that regular employees must receive. The proposed rule adopts an "economic reality" test to determine a worker's status as an FLSA employee or independent contractor.

There will be a 30-day comment period after the proposed rule's official publication in the Federal Register. The rule, if finalized as proposed, may make classifying workers as contractors or employees easier. However, the US DOL proposed rule would not overturn labor-friendly state independent-contractor laws, such as the one in California.

Gene Keefe’s “Independent Contractor” Rule

In my view, someone is an “independent contractor” when they have their own work comp, liability, MVA and other insurance coverage. You can buy it for them or give them money to buy it but if they have their own coverages on their own dime, insurance coverages to a great extent, mitigate corporate exposure in the event of injury or serious loss.

If a supposed “independent contractor” is injured or disabled and they have no WC or other coverage, they are going to fight to be treated as an FLSA employee.

Economic Reality Test Proposed by the Feds

Under the proposed economic reality test, the U.S. DOL would consider whether a worker is in business for himself or herself and thus is an independent contractor, or if the worker is economically dependent on another business entity for work and is an FLSA employee.

In making this determination, the DOL would identify two core factors:

§  The nature and degree of the worker's control over the work.

§  The worker's opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative or investment.

It also would identify three other factors that may serve as additional guides in the analysis:

§  The amount of skill required for the work.

§  The degree of permanence of the working relationship between the worker and the potential employer.

§  Whether the work is part of an integrated unit of production.

But the two core factors are entitled to greater weight than the other factors, the DOL noted.

Core Factors

The first factor—the nature and degree of the individual's control over the work would suggest that an individual is an independent contractor to the extent they exercise substantial control over key aspects of the performance of the work, the DOL explained.

Examples of an individual's substantial control include:

§  Setting his or her own work schedule.

§  Choosing assignments.

§  Working with little or no supervision.

§  Being able to work for others, including a potential employer's competitors.

In contrast, the control factor would weigh in favor of classification as an employee to the extent that a potential employer, rather than the individual, exercises substantial control over key aspects of the work, including through requirements that the individual work for the employer exclusively during the working relationship.

The proposed rule clarifies that requiring an individual to comply with specific legal obligations, satisfy health and safety standards, carry insurance, meet contractually agreed-upon deadlines or quality control standards, or satisfy other similar terms that are typical of contractual relationships between businesses would not constitute control that makes the individual more or less likely to be an employee under the FLSA.

The second factor—the worker's opportunity for profit or loss based on initiative or investment—would, under the proposed rule, suggest that an individual is an independent contractor if he or she has an opportunity for profit or loss on either:

§  The exercise of personal initiative, including managerial skill or business acumen.

§  The management of investments in or capital expenditure on, for example, helpers, equipment or materials.

We appreciate your thoughts and comments. If you have concerns about “independent contractor” versus FLSA Employee status, please send a reply.

Synopsis: Annual IL State Chamber WC Conference Goes Virtual—Shawn Biery & John Campbell to present.

Editor’s comment: The 14th Annual Workers' Compensation & Safety Conference set for November 4th is being held virtual this year. The 8:30 am to noon program features John Ruser, President & CEO of the Workers' Compensation Research Institute (WCRI) and Michael Brennan, Chairman of the Illinois Workers' Compensation Commission.

The program also will include the following breakout sessions:

• Advances in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome - Presented by Dr. Andrew Zelby and Dave Rusch, Vice President of Business Service Development, Ovation Hand Institute;

• Medical Marijuana in the Workplace - Presented by AJ Sheehan, MVP Law

• The Covid-19 Rebuttable Presumption - What is it and What Does it Mean for You? - Presented by Peter Stavropoulos, Brady Connolly and Masuda

• 2020 Workers Compensation Case Law Update - Presented by Shawn Biery and John Campbell, Keefe Campbell Biery & Associates

• Snakes, Leaches, and Tobacco Enemas - The Case for Evidence-Based Medical Treatment Guidelines - Presented by Patrick Robinson, Vice President, Government Affairs, ODG, an MCG Health Company

• OSHA Updates for 2020 and Beyond - Presented by Matthew Horn, SmithAmundsen LLC

For more information and to register:

https://ilchamber.org/workerscompconference/

9-1-2020; WC Central Misses the 800lb City of Chicago Pink Gorilla; HITECH Enters WC Claims and Litigation Practice and more

Synopsis: Missing the 800lb. Gorilla—WorkCompCentral Reports City of Chicago WC Committee Saved $1 Million After Ald. Burke Stepped Down—What About the $100M WC Claims Spend?

Editor’s comment: All Chicago media outlets are reporting Mayor Lori Lightfoot’s City of Chicago budget is expected to have a $2 billion deficit in the next 24 months. We are fairly sure it is going to be virtually impossible to make up that deficit and keep the “Second City” running in the fashion that has driven it into this whirlpool of skyrocketing debt. Municipal Bankruptcy and unpaid bills loom—hello Detroit.

In the past, I have reported one reason for this hilarious and scary financial situation is the City of Chicago was arguably a vastly “dangerous” place to work because hundreds and hundreds of City workers filed questionable WC claims over and over and over again. Along with high numbers of claims, City WC managers would allow workers to remain on TTD for years/decades to then provide giant settlements. I have warned over and over this can’t continue, as they are now completely running out of money.

You might not be surprised to learn the alderman who formerly ran the City’s WC program would not allow for light duty--causing high reserves, lost time and overtreatment. He also would not allow for surveillance of City workers, claiming it wouldn’t help—this meant City workers would quietly open businesses or make cash on the side while also getting TTD. If you research it, once this alderman was forced out due to a federal indictment, numerous workers who had been on TTD suddenly reported for work or retired.

WorkComp Central, a great national WC news outlet today reported an annual audit and financial report found the Council's Finance Committee, which ran the comp program for City employees, has saved almost $1 million in the year since the prior WC alderman managing the committee stepped down as chairman, according to the audit and a Chicago news report.

In 2018, the report indicates the committee spent $2 million, more than any other City of Chicago council committee. After the indictment was served, the managing alderman stepped down in January 2019 after he was charged with extortion. Since then, committee staff was cut to just three and the committee spent $1.1 million in 2019. Mayor Lori Lightfoot also brought in a new program administrator, and national TPA Gallagher Bassett was hired—this was a giant step for the City which hadn’t had an outside administrator, ever.

My issue is simple—the City of Chicago is broke, past broke. When I last looked they were spending over $100M annually in WC costs—please note this is for City of Chicago employees who aren’t police officers and firefighters. Police and firefighters in Chicago aren’t covered by WC. That doesn’t mean that hundreds of millions aren’t spent on such workers. The combined spend for all City workers on WC or police/fire disability is well over $200M per year in my opinion. I am not hearing any significant savings is occurring from my secret squirrels.

In short, I am not concerned about “committee costs.” I am concerned about government dysfunction and waste, waste, waste in managing WC and police/fire claims. I am hoping someone can tell us what the City is wasting, I mean, spending annually or monthly on combined WC and police/fire costs. Trust me, someone is going to have to make progress on ending phony claims and eternal disability for City of Chicago workers and police/fire folks.

I appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

Synopsis: Trying to Get The Low Down on HITECH In WC and Other Medical Records.

Editor’s comment: HITECH Act was implemented in 2010. It is a federal law. There has been widespread uncertainty about how to it works. The U.S. Department for Health and Human Services (DHHS) has worked several times to clear up the law, but unfortunately this has sometimes led to more confusion, not less.

Should Claimant Attorneys Use HITECH?

YES!!! Get the records needed to support your claims. Don’t mess with stupid State subpoenas that some caregivers ignore or over-charge for. File complaints with DHHS when treaters routinely ignore requests from patients for records.

When Claimant attorneys get the records and bills needed, share, share and share with the other side to support reserves, negotiations and your position in WC litigation.

Here are a few key principles:

• HITECH only applies to records requests from a patient, when the request comes from the patient directly and is in writing;

• HITECH does apply when the patient requests their medical records be sent to a designated representative, including the patient’s attorney;

• HITECH does not apply when an attorney directly requests the patient’s medical records;

• When the request is in writing from the patient, the healthcare professional must comply with HITECH and its rules

• When the request is from any other source, HITECH does not apply, and the healthcare professional can charge under state law and its rules, including the previously standard handling fee and per-page charge.

Does HITECH Apply to WC IME Reports?

The five bullet points above create something of a legal anomaly—IME docs are very careful to tell examinees they aren’t “patients” and no doctor-patient relationship is created. Very few IME docs make direct recommendations to patients for care. IME docs tell someone other than the examinee of their opinions and best thoughts.

In my view, HITECH requests should not apply to WC IME’s due to the lack of a doctor-patient relationship. Watch this space for news on this issue, if I hear of it.

1.     A physician or healthcare giver has a request from a patient asking for a copy of their records in electronic format. Can the doctor or healthcare giver charge the patient a handling fee and per-page copy fee?

From what I can tell, the HITECH Act is a federal law, and federal law preempts state law. The HITECH Act states a doctor/healthcare giver can charge a flat fee of $6.50. Alternatively, a provider can charge a “reasonable, cost-based fee” for producing electronic records when requested directly from the patient. That means the labor cost to the healthcare giver of producing records, is the demonstrable labor cost to put the records onto a CD, plus postage.

2.     The patient requested electronic records, so the doctor/hospital/caregiver scanned the paper records and put them on a CD. What can be charged under HITECH?

Whether the doc has to scan paper records into an electronic version, or drag and drop already-electronic records onto a disc, they may only charge the patient a flat fee of $6.50.  HITECH does give them a second option, which is to charge a “reasonable, cost-based fee” instead of the $6.50, for the actual labor cost to produce the electronic records. This would involve the labor-related cost to the healthcare giver’s business in scanning the paper record, uploading the record to a cloud-based system, or time spent creating and sending out a CD.  For example, if they pay someone on your staff $20.00 an hour to process records requests and they spend 10 minutes on the request, the labor cost is $3.33. They can add on the cost of the CD, which is about .20 cents and postage.

However, if they intend to charge something other than the flat fee, they must disclose those charges to the patient before sending the records. That is why most providers are choosing to charge the flat $6.50 fee for all requests, as it is simpler and more cost-effective to have one unified procedure for all requests.

3.     The patient letter also asked for a verification/certification that a caregiver has produced all the records. Can they charge the State administrative fee for preparing that?

No. The HITECH Act does not allow a provider to charge for the verification of the patient’s electronic record. DHHS has expressly stated that a provider cannot charge an administrative fee to verify the patient record.

4.     The caregiver doesn’t keep records in electronic form, so can they charge the old state per-page and handling fees?

The short answer is no.  The HITECH Act requires they comply with a request for records in electronic format if it is readily producible electronically. That means they must scan the paper records (typically into .pdf form) and transfer them onto a CD or flash drive.

If you have absolutely no ability to produce the records in any kind of electronic format, then (and only then) can you provide the patient with a hard copy of the record. Even in that case, they still must comply with HITECH in how they charge the patient. They cannot charge the handling and per-page fee allowed under state law. Under HITECH, they may only charge for actual labor costs and the cost of supplies.

6.     What does the doc do I do about x-ray films? They can’t scan those.

In this situation, it would be acceptable to charge the client the cost to you of reproducing the films and putting them onto a CD because the Act states that the records be “readily producible” in the manner requested.

7.     The patient (and not the patient’s attorney) sent a letter asking for their records in electronic format, but there was no HIPAA form. What is to be done?

When a provider receives a letter signed by the patient asking for medical records, the patient’s signature serves as the authorization.  A separate HIPAA release is not required.

8.     If a provider outsources all of records requests to a records provider, can they charge the patient for the cost of the third party vendor to copy the records?

No. HITECH does not allow the provider to pass the costs of a third party vendor to copy/scan records.

11.What is the deadline to respond to a request for electronic records?

The provider has 30 days to comply with the request. If you cannot comply within this time period, the provider must notify the patient of the reason for the delay within the initial 30 days and then the records are due in 30 more days.

I appreciate your thoughts and comments. Please post them on our award-winning blog.

Synopsis: The “Nuts and Bolts” of Investigating OccDisease Claims with a Specific Focus on this Pandemic—Consider Asking Shawn R. Biery, J.D. for His OccDisease Investigation Protocol.

Editor’s Comment: Shawn R. Biery of Keefe, Campbell, Biery & Assoc understands the challenges this crisis has brought to you and your claims management protocols. Suddenly, we are all being asked to figure out when/where and how someone contracted a life-threatening disease which comes with possible 7-figure OD claims exposure. To understand the risks and costs, please remember Shawn regularly updates his Illinois WC Rate Sheet—if you want a copy, send an email to Shawn or his great assistant Marissa Patel at mpatel@keefe-law.com

What Shawn has begun to detail are crucial investigation materials which you might want to consider--his new OccDisease Investigation protocol to allow you to:

1. Investigate and verify OccDisease claims for emergency workers covered under the new Rules promulgated by the IWCC;

2. Investigate and verify claims for other workers possibly not covered by the Rules and

3. Insure you have a strong basis to accept or deny OccDisease benefits in settings that may come at you and your company very rapidly.

We are constantly working to update the potential investigation protocols. Please again note, as we outline above, any Covid-19 exposure may come with 7-figure risk/reserves on a per claim basis—this is possibly a business-busting concept.

Please also make note, if you don’t diligently investigate, even without a presumption, our IL WC Commission may rule any Covid-19 claim is going to be adjudicated to be compensable.

Those supervisors, managers and adjusters who are now becoming OccDisease investigators will need the following skills:

Interviewing – the ability to draw out the relevant information through effective questioning

Communication (verbal and written) – the ability to interact effectively with injured persons, witnesses and suspects, as well as other investigators, and to communicate the findings of the investigation to a wide variety of individuals and organizations

Technical competence – the awareness of safe working procedures that should be adopted, with particular relevance to the event under investigation

Hazard recognition – the ability to ensure workers and investigators are not exposed to unnecessary risk

Interaction – personal attributes that enable effective relations with other people

Deduction – the ability to scrutinize all the evidence obtained, e.g. through observation, from witnesses’ statements and from documentary evidence, and to form a coherent picture that enables the causal factors to be identified

If you want a copy or someone to consult with an OccDisease Investigations and Rules, feel free to contact Shawn at sbiery@keefe-law.com or John Campbell at jcampbell@keefe-law.com